Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/E=mc squared

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Albert Einstein

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 08:01:51 (UTC)

 
Alt 1
 
1921 etching published 1921 in a limited edition of 43 impressions
Reason
Fixed issues raised by first nomination. Highest ev for any other image.
Articles in which this image appears
Albert Einstein and History of Germany (highest EV)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator
Ferdinand Schmutzer
"What transpired was that right from the beginning obstacles were put in my way by editors who take upon themselves the policing of copyright in Wikipedia. A user Sfan00 IMG flagged for deletion a whole series of pre-1923 local uploads of works still in artists' copyright as possibly URAA breaches. This turned out to be entirely specious, simply flat-out wrong. But what was actually comical was that when I turned to the Teahouse, support group for newbies, an adviser there with no absolutely no avowed expertise in copyright issues whatsoever, whom I rather strongly suspected of knowing less about copyright than I did, took it upon himself to defend the deletions on the grounds that there was no evidence the works had been "published" pre-1923. My reasonable replies, on which I spent significant time, were simply rejected. When I actually presented an impeccable provenance and exhibition history for one of the works prepared by the National Gallery of London, he airily dismissed that as not proof of "publication". In the end it transpired he had no idea what constitutes "publication" and that in any case the issue had been debated and settled before in favour of my position. It's no accident that the invitation to the Teaparty no longer graces this page."
The article start in question was Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900. The painting I refer to above was Oskar Kokoschka's Portrait of Lotte Franzos (a local upload because it's not PD in Austria). This famous and beautiful painting, created in 1909, was immediately controversial. It's unthinkable that it wasn't "published" i.e. illustrated in one of the very numerous art magazines of the time, when it was first exhibited in 1911. Yet to provide "proof" of this publication would be a major undertaking that even the National Gallery of London could not supply in its Immunity from Seizure filing it made for the exhibition.
It's frankly tedious to continue contributing to debates like this. Eventually one gives up in frustration as I indeed did with almost my entire project when I started my account.
I urge editors to ignore this specious copyright issue raised here, really not our concern, when considering their support for this image.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Policy is to accept date of creation as date of publication"... really now? That's not my experience, and in fact I've seen several images taken in the 1940s be deleted because there was no proof that they were published at the time. For, say, an Australian photograph in which the year of creation is taken into consideration (and not publication), that might not be a problem, but for this image there are major issues. We should not knowingly promote a possible copyright violation as FP. Period. Possible copyvios are far from "Wikipedia's best work". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rereading the debates over the Vienna exhibition, it appears you are paraphrasing a quote by Stefan2, namely "This problem is sometimes discussed on Commons, and Commons has more or less accepted that the date of publication is impossible to find, so Commons typically uses the date of creation instead." I should note again that this is for paintings, not photographs. Data of creation is generally not enough for a photograph to survive a deletion nomination at Commons (in my personal experience, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed, as conceded by the great Stefan2/4/etc. himself. And I can quote a long standing administrator at Commons in support as well. So there we are. It is exactly as I said i.e. to say Commons policy is to accept creation date as publication date failing evidence to the contrary. As for Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, of course that was "published" before 1923, Picasso long an established artist and the painting long iconic.
In this case we have a photograph of a similarly celebrated public figure which was plainly taken for the purpose of illustrating some work or other and there's every reason to suppose it was published at around the same time and no good reason to suppose it wasn't. So why the attitude here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I think it is very sad that you oppose because of copyright issue. As I said above (did you read me?), even if we don't have a definitive proof, I think there is only one chance in a million that it is not in the public domain in the US. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I plead that editors do not let these specious copyright concerns deter them from supporting fine images such as this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you take it to a copyright forum first please, to make sure of the facts before nominating for deletion this long-standing multi-linked file. As I read the the Hirtle chart, it was first published abroad 2001 (purchase by a national archive constitutes publication) and in the public domain in Austria at the URAA date (Schmutzer died in 1925). So we are instructed to go to US publication chart to determine status and we have never published, never registered - "Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author" {{PD-US-unpublished}}. That's how I read the chart. @Stefan: Stefan will know - not that he responds to my pings very much  . Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the Hirtle chart was published on Cornell's website first (but given a CC license). Have another read of {{PD-US-unpublished}}; for the 70 years pma to apply here, the images would have had to first been published in 2003 or later. This is in-line with what the Hirtle chart says (Commons version): "Created before 1978 and first published between 1 March 1989 through 2002 = The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047 = earliest 2047)". If this had been published just two years later, this would have been free, but sadly it wasn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Aren't you looking in the wrong place? This is for work first published in the US. But this work was first published in Austria. The mere act of these images being purchased by a a national archive constitutes publication in US case law. QED. My money is on Cornell. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cornell - "Published abroad after 1 March 1989"
Published in a country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention - 70 years after the death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication.
Blame Cornell. Can't really be arsed with this any more. Sorry. A real expert like Stefan no doubt will be along in a while. Love you loads, Stef. No really. Honest Indian, swear by my blanket and everything. Peace pipe. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if we do assume that date of creation = date of publication (which is not my experience, and I am aware of no policy which suggests otherwise)- I think we need something a little stronger than "oh well, I suppose it's PD" for a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bild Nummer 5103991
Message:
Can you comment please for me on the the Public Domain status in the United States (and indeed in Austria) of your holding inv. no. 5103991. This is a B&W glass negative portrait of Albert Einstein by Ferdinand Schmutzer, portraitist and President of the Vienna Secession 1914-1917, dating from 1921. I believe it was purchased by your library in 2001 along with other recently discovered negatives by Schmutzer. Is that correct? If not perhaps you can tell me when it was first published. I know that Schmutzer's images of Sigmund Freud are contested by the Freud estate. As far as I know there are no claims on his images of Albert Einstein. I would be grateful if you could confirm that as well.
I'll report back if I hear anything. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had confirmation from the ANL that the image was purchased in 2001 (copied to the nomination for deletion pages). This indeed means that the image is in their copyright until 2027 per article 4 Directive 2006/116/EC because it was published after the author's copyright had expired (on a point of clarity if had been published while in copyright then the ordinary term 70 year pma applies: thus if it had been published in 1998 - Schmutzer dying in 1928 according to Wikipedia - it would have entered PD the year following in the normal way).
The PD status in US not clear to me. I'm consulting source text tonight, if necessary US case law. I want to save this fine image at least for Wikipedia with a local upload. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the Schmutzer etching (thumbnailed) to Commons:File:Albert Einstein, Etching by Ferdinand Schmutzer 1921.jpg and posted at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Albert_Einstein_photo_by_Ferdinand_Schmutzer to enquire whether the 1921 publication of the etching is adequate to establish publication within the terms of the Berne Convention for the photo. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/E%3Dmc_squared&oldid=1142277068"